Read: Jack Smith’s evidence against Trump in the Jan. 6 case

[TamleeB]

And yet despite Smith’s convenient release. Trump and Harris appear to be in a virtual tie.

 

[dcsports]

Trump’s team has until Nov 10 to respond but can choose to respond sooner if they wish.

Their opportunity currently exists as they can file paperwork at any time.

They're kind of busy.

They had very little opportunity to respond on the issue of unsealing the motion.

 

[soap box]

Given that Mr. Smith does not allege that Mr. Trump:
1. Incited anyone
2. Committed sedition
3. Attempted to overturn the election

It is doubtful that Smith has evidence of all this.

And as we now know, he doesn't.

Number 3 is in the current charges. That's count 1 , conspiracy to defraud.

The public doesn't have a right to it.
Only does the defendant, the prosecutor judge.
And eventual jury.

Reporters are common in courtrooms . Why is this different?

I can see what Chutken meant when she wrote that it would be election interference to hide this. When you read the filing from Smith, it's full of facts. His filing is specific and detailed. There's much more evidence than what was included in the prior indictment.

Chutken is right. The more I read , the more I think voters need to know.

 

[primaryKey]

She could have just written "I'm doing this to try and help Harris in the election". Would have been quicker.

This is quite a strong reading comprehension fail. Your book report scores a D-minus. You get points for putting your name on your paper and glossing over the selected text.

 

[primaryKey]

If you read their sentiments under videos and forums, that's not solely the reason for many MAGAs.

They're fighting to preserve DEMOCRACY!



Freedom of Speech, is the first thing to go in a dying democracy.
USA is showing a lot of symptoms!
Its democracy is gravely threatened.


Heck! A good example:
Just look at that, "grab them by the p****!" comment made by Trump in what was supposed to be a PRIVATE conversation!
Sure it's crude!
But - look at all the SPEECH POLICE!


They think they're scoring a point whenever they bring that out about Trump!
It only serves to underline that under these lunatics - there's nothing called, "PRIVACY" anymore.
And yet they keep harping about privacy between a woman and her doctor!
But you don't get the pleasure of a private conversation! Go figure.

Lol - if you think we're so full of surveillance now - wait til they bug even your homes!

Speech police? Really?

He's free to say almost anything he likes. In public or private. That doesn't mean he's immune from the judgement of anyone who hears him. This entire conversation wasn't just crude, it was a confession. He was bragging about being able to assault women in a sexual manner, because he is a celebrity. He didn't say they like when you do it. He said, "They let you do it." He doesn't care if they have any preference about being assaulted, just that he can get away with it.

This man is an adjudicated rapists, but even if he wasn't, this is only crude to your ears? SMH

 

[mrjurrs]

Quick 723 page read!!!

Shortest 735 page read ever! There is about a 100 page section right where you might expect to see the People's interviews with VP Pence. Hmmm...

 

[mrjurrs]

I think I'd rather wait to see what comes of it. I am sure the lawyers for both sides will come up with the pertinent passages/proof/evidence, and then we can discuss it, UNLESS of course someone wants to read it all and get back to me with how both sides would see it?

Switch to the 165 page filing by Smith about why the charges should still be filed after the SCOTUS decision. I'm about halfway through, it is less redacted and imo clearly establishes private actions while President that sure seem illegal to me.

 

[primaryKey]

The public doesn't have a right to it.
Only does the defendant, the prosecutor judge.
And eventual jury.

Apparently, you have no idea how transparent the criminal justice system in this country is. You'd be surprised what is public.

 

[The Hairy Fiddler]

And yet despite Smith’s convenient release. Trump and Harris appear to be in a virtual tie.

a sad, sad commentary that so many in Americans have become cult members who really can't think for themselves anymore.

 

[The Hairy Fiddler]

There were affidavits from HUNDREDS of people claiming fraud. Heck, 2 years after the election we had Kari Lake out here even showing how some of that fraud could have occurred but the judge in that case said, in effect, "All you need is a signature verification system. There's no requirement that it's effective". That's the kind of crap we've been dealing with all along.

Apparently, your reading skills are sorely lacking. Every single one of these affidavits were presented to the courts, and every single court said there was nothing to prove any fraud whatsoever. Why do you not know this? Or is it you know it, but you want to continue your MAGA trolling?

Why do you defend this clown?

 

[The Hairy Fiddler]

Given that Mr. Smith does not allege that Mr. Trump:
1. Incited anyone
2. Committed sedition
3. Attempted to overturn the election

It is doubtful that Smith has evidence of all this.

And as we now know, he doesn't.

Smith has plenty of evidence to put orange Messiah away for the rest of his life. You better hope he wins the election.

 

[Athanasius68]

You are disputing the ruling of a federal district court judge?

Why not? Plenty of people around here dispute the rulings of a federal court judge.

When the ruling was to dismiss a criminal charge in Florida.

"...there is “an important presumption in favor of public access to all facets of criminal court proceedings.” United States v. Hubbard, 650 F.2d 293, 317 (D.C.Cir. 1980)."​

That ruling dealt with a non-defendant who was objecting to his documents being released, documents which were being used by the defendants to argue that other documents that the feds had seized which they (the feds) were using in their prosecution, had been unlawfully seized.

It doesn't have anything really to do with with evidence against a defendant being released when there is no real legal rationale for it, and which can only prejudice a jury.

 

[DCCougar]

This was a purely political move.

No, it was in direct response to the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity. You disobey the Supreme Court at your peril.

 

[mike2810]

The document says "a slim chance" isn't that enough to pursue? What chance did the Patriots of the American Revolution have to defeat the British Army? The slim chance was apparently worth fighting for.
The "evidence" in this filing is only being released now in another attempt to interfere in the election. Nothing in it is new and as you can see it's heavily redacted.
How many times has Jack Smith had verdict overturned because he acted unprofessionally and illegally?

‘No white knight’: Jack Smith’s record rife with mistrials, overturned convictions, judicial rebukes

Special counsel Jack Smith, who has brought federal charges against former President Donald Trump, is an “overzealous” prosecutor who relies on ethically dubious tactics, including media leaks and enticing witnesses, say those who have been caught in his snare.

www.washingtontimes.com

Still waiting for the "evidence" that shows the 2020 election was rigged/stolen from Trump.
Trump and his supporters have yet to provide the "evidence". Why is that?

imo, Trump and some of his supporters did try to keep Trump in power.

 

[dcsports]

No, it was in direct response to the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity. You disobey the Supreme Court at your peril.

Putting the massive dump of evidence / allegations into the motion, and unsealing it right before the election, is purely a political move. They could have submitted the motion without the 'extra' information, waited until after the election, or left it under seal like most of their other motions and filings.

 

[TamleeB]

a sad, sad commentary that so many in Americans have become cult members who really can't think for themselves anymore.

And it’s a sad, sad commentary that anyone not voting for Harris gets referred to as a “cult” member. So be it. We are about to find out how that commentary plays out with Americans. It’s all good…

 

[RaleBulgarian]

They're kind of busy.

They had very little opportunity to respond on the issue of unsealing the motion.

Nonsense.

None of the information is new to Traitor Trump’s team of attorneys.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

And yet despite Smith’s convenient release. Trump and Harris appear to be in a virtual tie.

Smith didn’t release the evidence. Judge Chutkan did.

 

[TamleeB]

Smith didn’t release the evidence. Judge Chutkan did.

Sure. Harris and Trump appear to be a virtual tie.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Harris and Trump appear to be a virtual tie.

Sure.

 

[ClaraD]

I think I'd rather wait to see what comes of it. I am sure the lawyers for both sides will come up with the pertinent passages/proof/evidence, and then we can discuss it, UNLESS of course someone wants to read it all and get back to me with how both sides would see it?

I think I will read it all...and take notes.

 

[ClaraD]

And thus is the reason for the release...

She ruled that it would also be interference to not release it....so, there is that. There is a public interest here that outweighs his right to try to hide his corruption in the closet.

 

[Athanasius68]

She ruled that it would also be interference to not release it....so, there is that. There is a public interest here that outweighs his right to try to hide his corruption in the closet.

The judge had repeatedly said the election would not be a factor in her decision.

So-- she proceeded to let it factor in her decision.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

The blank pages are there for Jack Smith to make up his lawfare lies.

Nonsensical bullshit.

The blanks are redacted.

Trump lost.

Trump lied about losing and sent an armed mob to the capitol.

Now he is going to pay for that crime.

 

[upsideguy]

Putting the massive dump of evidence / allegations into the motion, and unsealing it right before the election, is purely a political move. They could have submitted the motion without the 'extra' information, waited until after the election, or left it under seal like most of their other motions and filings.

This trial should be over already. Trump made it political by stretching it out and claiming it was political. Smith merely answered the challenge set forth by the SCOTUS as a matter of course. Things move along. The judge released the prosecutors pleading to the public domain, where frankly it belongs. This information should be available to the voters before the vote. That said, there was very little new stuff here. Most of this is already in the public domain.

The judge had repeatedly said the election would not be a factor in her decision.

So-- she proceeded to let it factor in her decision.

She didn't.... she is continuing to conduct business in the normal course without regard to the election. This trial should have been over already. The PEOPLE have substantially be denied justice. They, at least, have a right to the information therein.